Similar revision rate after cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty: analysis of 1,879 revision hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.13211

Keywords:

Hip, Periprosthetic fracture, re-revision, total hip arthroplasty, Vancouver B2, Vancouver B3

Abstract

Background and purpose:  Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a serious complication, as it often is followed by functional deficits and morbidity. There is no consensus regarding the optimal stem fixation method and whether additional cup replacement is beneficial. The aim of our study was to perform a direct comparison of reasons and risk of re-revision between cemented and uncemented revision THAs following PPF using registry data.
Patients and methods: 1,879 patients registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry (LROI) who underwent a first-time revision for PPF between 2007 and 2021 (cemented stem: n = 555; uncemented stem: n = 1,324) were included. Competing risk survival analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed.
Results: 5- and 10-year crude cumulative incidence of re-revision following revision for PPF was similar between cemented (resp. 13%, 95% CI 10–16 and 18%, CI 13–24) and uncemented (resp. 11%, CI 10–13 and 13%, CI 11–16) revisions. Multivariable Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders, showed a similar risk of revision for uncemented and cemented revision stems. Finally, we found no difference in risk of re-revision between a total revision (HR 1.2, 0.6–2.1) compared with a stem revision.
Conclusion: We found no difference in the risk of re-revision between cemented and uncemented revision stems after revision for PPF.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Annual report. LROI report, 2020. Numbers—LROI Report—Information on orthopaedic prosthesis procedures in the Netherlands (lroireport.nl). Last accessed July 2022.

Bottle A, Griffiths R, White S, Wynn-Jones H, Aylin P, Moppett I, et al. Periprosthetic fractures: the next fragility fracture epidemic? A national observational study. BMJ Open 2020; 10(12): e042371. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042371

Menken L G, Rodriguez J A. Femoral revision for periprosthetic fracture in total hip arthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2020; 11(1): 16-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.12.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2019.12.003

Abdel M P, Cottino U, Mabry T M. Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review. Int Orthop 2015; 39(10): 2005-10. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2979-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2979-0

Duncan C P, Masri B A. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 1995; 45: 293-304.

Stoffel K, Horn T, Zagra L, Mueller M, Perka C, Eckardt H. Periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur: beyond the Vancouver classification. EFORT Open Rev 2020; 5(7): 449-56. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190086. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.5.190086

Tyson Y, Rolfson O, Kärrholm J, Hailer N P, Mohaddes M. Uncemented or cemented revision stems? Analysis of 2,296 first-time hip revision arthroplasties performed due to aseptic loosening, reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2019; 90(5): 421-6. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1624336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1624336

Hernigou P, Dupuys N, Delambre J, Guissou I, Poignard A, Allain J, et al. Long, titanium, cemented stems decreased late periprosthetic fractures and revisions in patients with severe bone loss and previous revision. Int Orthop 2015; 39(4): 639-44. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2528-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2528-2

Weiss R J, Stark A, Kärrholm J. A modular cementless stem vs. cemented long-stem prostheses in revision surgery of the hip: a population-based study from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2011; 82(2): 136-42. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.566145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.566145

Sponer P, Korbel M, Grinac M, Prokes L, Bezrouk A, Kucera T. The outcomes of cemented femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in the elderly: comparison with cementless stems. Clin Interv Aging 2021; 16: 1869-76. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S306463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S306463

Klasan A, Millar J, Quayle J, Farrington B, Misur P N. Comparable outcomes of in-cement revision and uncemented modular stem revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture at 5 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2022; 142(6): 1039-46. doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-03776-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03776-5

Schmale G A, Lachiewicz P F, Kelley S S. Early failure of revision total hip arthroplasty with cemented precoated femoral components: comparison with uncemented components at 2 to 8 years. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15(6): 718-29. doi: 10.1054/arth.2000.6623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2000.6623

Von Elm E, Altman D G, Egger M, Pocock S J, Gotzsche P C, Vandenbroucke J P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007; 370(9596): 1453-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X

Springer B D, Berry D J, Lewallen D G. Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85(11): 2156-62. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200311000-00015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200311000-00015

Kennedy J W, Hrycaiczuk A, Ng N Y B, Sheerins O, Patil S R, Jones B G, et al. Cement-in-cement versus uncemented modular stem revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures. J Orthop 2022; 31: 124-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2022.03.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2022.03.008

Chatziagorou G, Lindahl H, Kärrholm J. Surgical treatment of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures: patient characteristics and outcomes of 1381 fractures treated in Sweden between 2001 and 2011. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B(11): 1447-58. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B11.BJJ-2019-0480.R2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B11.BJJ-2019-0480.R2

Zijlstra W P, De Hartog B, Van Steenbergen L N, Scheurs B W, Nelissen R G H H. Effect of femoral head size and surgical approach on risk of revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2017; 88(4): 395-401. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2017.1317515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1317515

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2023-05-22

How to Cite

van Dooren, B., Peters, R. M., Jutte, P. C., Stevens, M., Schreurs, B. W., & Zijlstra, W. P. (2023). Similar revision rate after cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty: analysis of 1,879 revision hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthopaedica, 94, 260–265. https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.13211

Issue

Vol. 94 (2023): Acta Orthopaedica

Section

Articles

Categories

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Bart van Dooren, Rinne M Peters, Paul C Jutte, Martin Stevens, B Willem Schreurs, Wierd P Zijlstra

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Acta Orthopaedica (Scandinavica) content is available freely online as from volume 1, 1930. The journal owner owns the copyright for all material published until volume 80, 2009. As of June 2009, the journal has however been published fully Open Access, meaning the authors retain copyright to their work. As of June 2009, articles have been published under CC-BY-NC or CC-BY licenses, unless otherwise specified.
 
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC